Over 10 Years After It Was Announced, Star Citizen’s Single-Player Squadron 42 Is ‘Feature Complete’ - IGN
ign.com
Over 10 Years After It Was Announced, Star Citizen’s Single-Player Squadron 42 Is ‘Feature Complete’ - IGN::Star Citizen developer Cloud Imperium Games has said Squadron 42, the single-player portion of its controversial space sim, is finally “feature complete”, over a decade after it was announced.
You are viewing a single comment
Reminder that Starfield was in development for 8 years by an experienced gigantic team with a AAA budget and it still wasn't half as good as indie crowd founded Star Citizen alpha version.
Starfield had less than half the budget of Star Citizen and actually came out.
That depends on your perspective on the engine and dev tools.
Does it really though?
Starfield could have been programmed in potato with ti-84 calculators as dev tools. The work has been done to bring a playable game to the market.
What goes on behind the scenes isn't really important to an end user. They are purchasing an entertainment experience, not an investment into a game engine.
The point I was making was a response to the budget statement. Starfield uses an engine that bethsoft first licensed expensively, modified extensively at expense and then bought the company's assets. The game's singular budget does not show the development cost. That was my point.
If we're discussing game dev budgets we're not talking from an end user perspective.
Are you suggesting that we should raise the cost of Starfield’s development then and account for hidden engine costs?
We can do that. I don’t know what a good number would be, but let’s quadruple or quintuple it for fun. Are we sitting at the $1.5 billion dollar mark? This gives us a scenario where Starfield has now cost twice to develop than this game.
The game was still developed and released. At some point, long development times start to work against a product. This isn’t a field where consumer expectations and tastes remain constant. The longer a game takes to make, the more dated design decisions may appear. Graphics cannot remain cutting edge for the entirety of a 10 year development cycle without rework, which can be seen as a waste of resources. That time and energy could have gone towards something else. Rework enough systems and you begin to paralyze your ability to actually complete the project.
Reminder that starfield is playable and enjoyable, with decent performance and a complete game with a shitload of missions. Can Starfield be better? Yeah, and I think it probably will be with a bit if time. Is the space combat a little bit dogshit with really nice audio design? Yeah, it sure is. Is it actually out, playable, with boarding and ship building? Yep, sure seems like it.
I don't even know why you threw this example out there for a single player game that's pretty much what everyone expected from a AAA studio in the current "optimize every dev hour per dollar" bottom line focused game dev style.
You can play SC now if you want, lots of people to and enjoy it.
The second half I don't dispute, people play it and enjoy it. The first part though I'm not sure about for myself, I don't think I can play SC, certainly not the SC I paid for god knows how long ago. I can play a tech demo right now, and that's just not enough.
I hope I cream my pantaloons when SQ42 actually lands. Until then, SC as a whole is far from what's been promised.
Played SC 2 years ago and it was extremely extremely buggy and a seriously hardware straining experience. I really wanted to enjoy it, because traversing the city by metro and seeing the ship's interior is pretty cool, but like on every 2-3rd mission, a bug killed my run.
Got to love the classic of buying some trade goods and then randomly exploding en route, so you lose all your credits.
Not even the same situation
Permanently Deleted